"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


And you're a piece of ****.

Make that a lying piece of ****.
In fact, the only time I know for sure you've told the truth is when you
admitted to being a socialist.



I don't recall "admitting" to being a socialist, feces-for-brains. I'm
actually a moderate, yellow-dog Democrat. But I certainly find very
little wrong with the brand of democratic socialism practiced in some
northern European nations.


You *did* admit that you're a socialist. You just didn't use the exact
words "I'm a Socialist". Maybe this will jar your memory:

Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be
used
for redistribution of the wealth?

Harry's answer: "Yup"



Let me elaborate here, should the government in effect transfer money via
the income tax system directly from one group of people to another?

Harry's answer: "Yup"



Or to further clarify it, should folks that DON"T PAY ANY INCOME TAXES
receive money from the income tax system from others that do pay?

Harry's answer: "Yup"


If it talks like a duck, and walks like a duck...

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


And you're a piece of ****.

Make that a lying piece of ****.
In fact, the only time I know for sure you've told the truth is when you
admitted to being a socialist.



I don't recall "admitting" to being a socialist, feces-for-brains. I'm
actually a moderate, yellow-dog Democrat. But I certainly find very
little wrong with the brand of democratic socialism practiced in some
northern European nations.


You *did* admit that you're a socialist. You just didn't use the exact
words "I'm a Socialist". Maybe this will jar your memory:

Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be
used
for redistribution of the wealth?


Harry's answer: "Yup"


And, indeed, our progressive tax system does redistribute wealth.






Let me elaborate here, should the government in effect transfer money via
the income tax system directly from one group of people to another?

Harry's answer: "Yup"


And that is what it does.




Or to further clarify it, should folks that DON"T PAY ANY INCOME TAXES
receive money from the income tax system from others that do pay?

Harry's answer: "Yup"

So, you would cut off all the millions of retired social security
recipients, eh?





If it talks like a duck, and walks like a duck...


Then it must be an American who supports the system.

Sorry, bad-breath-for-brains, but you are, as usual, dead wrong.

Next time you give yourself a root canal, stop before you hit your
brain, eh?



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


And you're a piece of ****.

Make that a lying piece of ****.
In fact, the only time I know for sure you've told the truth is when you
admitted to being a socialist.



I don't recall "admitting" to being a socialist, feces-for-brains.

In case you forgot, here's how you defined "Socialism":

"In it's simplest form, socialism is forced distribution of wealth." (Harry
Krause, February 2000)

Then you answered "YUP" to the following questions:

1)Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be
used for redistribution of the wealth?

2)Should the government in effect transfer money via
the income tax system directly from one group of people to another?

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


And you're a piece of ****.

Make that a lying piece of ****.
In fact, the only time I know for sure you've told the truth is when
you
admitted to being a socialist.



I don't recall "admitting" to being a socialist, feces-for-brains. I'm
actually a moderate, yellow-dog Democrat. But I certainly find very
little wrong with the brand of democratic socialism practiced in some
northern European nations.


You *did* admit that you're a socialist. You just didn't use the exact
words "I'm a Socialist". Maybe this will jar your memory:

Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be
used
for redistribution of the wealth?


Harry's answer: "Yup"


And, indeed, our progressive tax system does redistribute wealth.


But awhile ago you defined "Socialism" as the "forced redistribution of
wealth". Now, you say you support such a system. That makes you a
Socialist. You fit your very own definition!




K-ripes, are you really as simple-minded as you come across here, or is
it an act? I never defined socialism as "forced redistribution of
wealth." The current income tax system in the USA "forces"
redistribution of wealth. Are you claiming the USA is socialist?

Idiots like you should be forced to take an exam before being allowed to
vote. Or speak.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:-J-dnVHsWMANwc6iU-


So, you would cut off all the millions of retired social security
recipients, eh?


No. But I would definitely privatize social security so this
Democrat-created blackhole dies a much-deserved death.

The funny thing about Social Security is that it was a Democrat-founded
socialistic policy that is now seen to have failed miserably. Yet, the Dems
make it their number one scare-tactic issue. That's the foundation of your
party, however. Get enough people hooked on the Government's tit, and then
blame the big ol' bad Republicans for taking it away. You guys are like the
corner drug dealers...but you're pushing economic handouts rather than
drugs.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


And you're a piece of ****.

Make that a lying piece of ****.
In fact, the only time I know for sure you've told the truth is when
you
admitted to being a socialist.



I don't recall "admitting" to being a socialist, feces-for-brains.

In case you forgot, here's how you defined "Socialism":

"In it's simplest form, socialism is forced distribution of wealth."
(Harry
Krause, February 2000)

Then you answered "YUP" to the following questions:

1)Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should
be
used for redistribution of the wealth?

2)Should the government in effect transfer money via
the income tax system directly from one group of people to another?




Indeed, that is what we do here in the US of A.

And that's what most conservatives would like to see eliminated...or at
least modified. A progressive tax is Socialism. A flat tax is fair.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

But awhile ago you defined "Socialism" as the "forced redistribution of
wealth". Now, you say you support such a system. That makes you a
Socialist. You fit your very own definition!




K-ripes, are you really as simple-minded as you come across here, or is
it an act? I never defined socialism as "forced redistribution of
wealth."

"In it's simplest form, socialism is forced distribution of wealth." (Harry
Krause, February 2000)

Old age getting to your memory?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:-J-dnVHsWMANwc6iU-


So, you would cut off all the millions of retired social security
recipients, eh?


No. But I would definitely privatize social security so this
Democrat-created blackhole dies a much-deserved death.

The funny thing about Social Security is that it was a Democrat-founded
socialistic policy that is now seen to have failed miserably. Yet, the
Dems
make it their number one scare-tactic issue. That's the foundation of
your
party, however. Get enough people hooked on the Government's tit, and
then
blame the big ol' bad Republicans for taking it away. You guys are like
the
corner drug dealers...but you're pushing economic handouts rather than
drugs.


Awww, poor baby.

I'm not poor, but if I were, it'd most likely be because of today's unfair
progressive tax system.

I find it mildly amusing that your d.f. accusations
about me being a "socialist" are based upon my support of the present
system of taxation in this country.

....which, according to your own definition, is socialism.


Not that I find the tag of
"socialist" in any way offensive

Of course not. That's most people's beef with Democrats. They think there
is nothing wrong with Socialism.

as I find very little to dislike about
the systems of modern democratic socialism practiced in, say, Norway, or
some of the other northern European nations.

As for our tax rates, I don't believe they are "progressive" enough
against the truly wealthy. Above certain levels of income, I'd support a
50% tax rate, and I'd tax *all* income. Every bit of it.

I believe in taxing *all* income as well...at an *equal* rate across the
board. Do away with exemptions and tax it all...but at a flat tax.

So you believe that individuals should have to take a test before they vote
or even to speak. Sounds like the old Jim Crow laws.

Scary that anyone would make a suggestion like that in 2003.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

"Jim" is a horse's ass.


And you're a piece of ****.

Make that a lying piece of ****.
In fact, the only time I know for sure you've told the truth is
when
you
admitted to being a socialist.



I don't recall "admitting" to being a socialist, feces-for-brains.
I'm
actually a moderate, yellow-dog Democrat. But I certainly find very
little wrong with the brand of democratic socialism practiced in
some
northern European nations.


You *did* admit that you're a socialist. You just didn't use the
exact
words "I'm a Socialist". Maybe this will jar your memory:

Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should
be
used
for redistribution of the wealth?


Harry's answer: "Yup"


And, indeed, our progressive tax system does redistribute wealth.


But awhile ago you defined "Socialism" as the "forced redistribution of
wealth". Now, you say you support such a system. That makes you a
Socialist. You fit your very own definition!




K-ripes, are you really as simple-minded as you come across here, or is
it an act? I never defined socialism as "forced redistribution of
wealth." The current income tax system in the USA "forces"
redistribution of wealth. Are you claiming the USA is socialist?

Idiots like you should be forced to take an exam before being allowed to
vote. Or speak.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Jim,

Could you just post the names of those forums? Your email address doesn't work.

Gael


"Jim" wrote in message news:I5d4b.310030$o%2.142074@sccrnsc02...
Find a real boating forum. This NG is a joke and nothing more than cheap
entertainment.

Harry, Gould, bb, jps, Jim Dandy, ignoramus and the group have turned this into nothing
more than a political chat room full of childish name calling and intolerance for
opposing opinions.

Don't blame me for what it is now. I came on board when the NG was already screwed up
thanks to the members I mentioned above. I only joined in the fun.

Email me if you want some serious boating forums.


"noah" wrote in message
...
When I first found rec.boats, I was thrilled (it doesn't take much
anymore) at the idea of "fellow boaters" to talk with.

Soon after, after wading through the political and personal bashing, I
mentioned this in the group, and was told (about 3:1), to "get used to
it". I have.

I have researched the rec.boats Charter and,basically, the founders
never anticipated that the group would be used for anything *but*
boating posts, therefore did not include any language concerning OT
posts. C'est dommage.

I admit to joining the OT posts now and then. It's like a "free
brunch". How can you resist? ) Sometimes, they are interesting.

As regular posters to this group, would you support an amendment to
the FAQ requiring that the letters "OT" precede any off-topic post?
This would not limit any discussion, but would enable the boating
purists to filter the background noise. The political warriors would
remain free to eviscerate each other.

As it stands, some do, some don't, "OT". Some posters have left the
group, or have become "lurkers", because they are annoyed and
frustrated with the OT postings. Perhaps a compromise is appropriate?

I can appreciate the idea that rec.boats is like "the bar at the yacht
club". I can also understand the plight of the weekend boater who
comes here looking for boating info, and finds reps and dems ripping
each others viscerals out. Viscerals are good, especially with garlic
and wine sauce, but this isn't a cooking newsgroup.

Is it worth the minimal effort to try to resolve these differences? I
think so, but then again, I married my ex-wife. My judgement is
suspect.

I would appreciate the comments of the entire group on this issue.

Regards,
noah